Bing
Forum Replies Created
Sonik Speed wrote on Jan 31 2006, 08:31 AM:In order to answer your question, here is what I suggest: Read all the postings I have posted on this website, since day #1 and you conclude for yourself whether or not I am one.Sonik Speed
[post=”2188″][/post]But Sonik, you were not present in the Forum on day 1, Oct 9, 2003, so how might one check your posts when you had not yet arrived? 😆
If memory serves me right, Sonik, you arrived on DAY 6, and not DAY 1. lol :ph34r:
Bing
Lamby, I have asked you repeatedly to share with the Forum, the results of your alleged “Freedom Conference” that you amazingly organized at the last minute, and in which you asserted that exactly 50 people from all over the country showed up.
IF YOU ARE A GENUINE NON-TAXPAYER WHO IS ONE WITH US, WHY DO YOU STILL REFUSE TO SHARE THE RESULTS OF YOUR ALLEGED FREEDOM CONFERENCE? YOUR REPEATED ACTIONS BETRAY YOUR POSTS.
Since you have arrived on this BBS, you have done nothing to dispel the allegation that you are an IRS undercover Agent.
In fact, many of your actions and posts since your appearence here, reaffirm the fact that you are an IRS Undercover Agent.
Sir, you “cover” has long since been blown and you have only yourself to blame for that.
I DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING YOU SAY OR YOU POST AND I WILL NEVER CLICK ON ANY OF THE urlS AND html's that you include as part of your bogus, deceptive posts.
It is as simple as that, Lamby.
Now, when you arrived in the Forum in the Summer of 2005, most bizzarely, your first post was a blanket invitation to everyone, to come to Chicago and attend your FREE Conference. You said the purpose of the conference was for freedom loving folks to share ideas, action plans, info, etc. Your entire invite was about sharing knowledge even though your first post JUST SCREAMED deception and was obtusely worded.
Oddly enough, you allegedly HELD the Conference, and YET YOU REFUSED TO SHARE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONFERENCE!!! Who the speakers were; where it was held, when, the subjects addressed, etc.
Even more strange, you instructed everyone in this Forum, to bring their “business cards” with them when they attended your FREEDOM conference. I mean, who organizes a Conference and feels compelled to instruct folks to bring their business cards?? Uhhh, NO ONE WOULD DO THAT EXCEPT AN IRS UNDERCOVER AGENT!!!!
So, based on your LACK OF SHARING, among certain other “tells” in your posts, and your reaction and non-reaction to MY POSTS ABOUT YOU, I deduced that you are an IRS Undercover Agent. And I still believe you are an IRS Agent who is present in this Forum under false pretenses.
You allege that you are a “carpenter” (hmmm, just like Jesus) but let me tell you, I have worked with carpenters and have known same for 20+ years and not a single one of them can write like you can. Why do you think that that is so?
Further, IN ORDER TO PROVE YOURSELF, I suggested to you to go over to the IRS-run forum at http://www.quatloos.com, and author 150 to 200 anti-IRS posts, and then after you do that, come back to this Forum and we can talk. You declined to do that. Not only that, your posts in this Forum skirt the edges and NEVER have an obvious anti-IRS tone.
Sure, you complain generally about “corruption” IN SOME OF YOUR POSTS, but you always stop short of ever criticizing the corrupt IRS and the corrupt DOJ.
SIR LAMBY, SIR, YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD.
Game. Set. Match.
Grace & Peace back at ya,
Your pal,
Bing
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
?. . .Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
?No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.?
and,
Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978)
?. . . a federal official may not with impunity ignore the limitations which the controlling law has placed on his powers…?
[. . .]
?. . . the official would not be excused from liability if he failed to observe statutory or constitutional limitations on his powers or if his conduct was a manifestly erroneous application of the statute…?
[. . .]
?. . . federal officials. . .even when acting pursuant to congressional authorization, are subject to the restraints imposed by the Federal Constitution. . .?
and
Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)
?. . . Whatever other concerns should shape a particular official?s actions, certainly one of them should be the constitutional rights of individuals who will be affected by his actions. . .?
Coppage v. State of Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915):
“Included in the rights of personal liberty and the right of private property–partaking of the nature of each–is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property.”
“…The right of a person to sell his labor upon such terms as he deems proper is, in its essence, the same as the right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions under which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell it.”
and
MEYER v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390 (1923):
While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co ., 111 U.S. 746 , 4 Sup. Ct. 652; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U.S. 313 , 10 Sup. Ct. 862; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 427; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 , 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78 , 29 Sup. Ct. 14; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 Sup. Ct. 259; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 36 Sup. Ct. 7, L. R. A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U.S. 590 , 37 Sup. Ct. 662, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 , 38 Sup. Ct. 337, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 , 42 Sup. Ct. 124; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U.S. 525 , 43 Sup. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. –; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered [262 U.S. 390, 400] with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 499.
Great class, Professor Sonik!! 🙂
Apostle is a fraud and a LIAR and he is an undercover IRS agent.
And you know how else we can tell, because of his response and non-response to the charge that he is an IRS undercover agent!!!
Apostle the LIAR simply DID NOT respond the way that someone would respond, if they truly were NOT an IRS SPY!!!
Again, Sonik, great job!!!
Bing
- Apostle wrote on Jan 25 2006, 11:58 PM:Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Mathew 5:11-12
Apostle of Yahweh
[post=”2136″][/post]Apostle, you are a LIAR and a FRAUD!!!
And you are an IRS or a DOJ undercover agent.
Be gone, you devil you!!!
All my luv,
Bing
PS. and Grace and Peace too!!
Hey, Apostle the Liar, why didn't you simply post the url link instead?
You are busted man, you are a fraud and liar.
You need to go back and huddle with your bosses at the IRS and the DOJ and hatch a new plan to obtain folks' ID via email.
See ya, you liar you.
Bing The Honest Guy
Great job, Sonik!! Bravo!!
Yes, as I suspected, there are folks here, present in the Forums, who have adopted innocent sounding names, like “Lambskin” and “Apostle”, to name just two, who most likely are trying to infiltrate and ingratiate themselves into the Forum, in a concerted effort to try and co-opt some of us, in an effort to pressure them to testify against Family Guardian or sedm.org ministry.
The corrupt IRS and corrupt DOJ are searching for any one they can to try and exert pressure on them, to help the USG make their bogus case against Chris. They are searching for weak links in the sedm ministry.
So, folks, lets be on our guard.
What is interesting about the LIAR & fraud named “Apostle”, is how hard he worked in his posts to come across as being 'holier than thou', and that in itself is a sure “tell” and a give-away that the person is likely an IRS plant/spy who is also a liar.
Sonik, you have done us all a great service with your cyber sleuthing, thank you, sir. And I just love how you baited him and set him up so that he was hoisetd on his own petard. Simply outstanding!!!
Apostle The Liar is in a bit of a bind right now, because if he disappears, it will prove that we were right, and that he or she is an IRS Spy. And if he comes back, he will have a lot of explaining to do, and will never never be trusted by any of us Forum regulars.
Apostle is a liar and a fraud and we know and God knows it as well.
Bing
lamchop, err, I mean Lamby, you said you organized a Freedom Conference in 2005 and that 50 people from all over the country attended.
I am curious, while you were hosting the Conference, did it occur to you to mention this Forum? And if you did mention this Forum, how come none of the other 50 attendees at your alleged Freedom Conference, have shown up here and discussed the results of the Conference.
Isn't that strange?
I mean, Lamby, your very 1st post touted your Freedom Conference, and ever since then, you have fallen silent and simply refused to share any of the material or the results of said Conference, despite the fact that you posted and said the purpose of the Conference was to share info, strategies, and tactics in dealing with the corrupt IRS.
Isn't that strange?
Now, Lamby, you profess/imply, albeit weakly, that you are “one of us”, but yet, you have not yet posted a single anti-IRS or anti-DOJ post, but instead, keep posting suspicious url links to other websites?
Isn't that strange?
Grace and Peace back at ya,
Bing
Sonic, btw, in that other thread, where you thought you were posting the confirmation hearing of Ginsburg, you actually posted the recent hearings of John Roberts.
I don't know if you corrected the error, but thought I would let you know.
Bing
Har-har-har. I think it is good that Souter is getting a taste of his own medicine. Bravo to the folks of New Hampshire!!! 😆
I think the Kelo decision is crazy. . . . . .but I respect it nonetheless, until I am convinced that it is unconstitutional.
Boy, when GW Bush #41 nominated David Souter, at the urging of his then Chief of Staff, John Sununnu, Bush never would have imagined that Souter would be so judicially liberal.
Bing
Amazingly, one of the most basic, elemental mistakes still consistently made by both Irwin Schiff and Larken Rose, is that in their pleadings, Motions, and research writings, they often refer to the Internal Revenue Code as being a “law” or “statute”.
Rose never seemed to grasp the importance of prior publication in the Federal Register, 44 USC 1505 and 1507, and its relation to due process of law, 5 USC 553, and, 26 CFR 601.701.
And neither Rose nor Schiff did a very effective job challenging and arguing lack of federal jurisdiction, although I suspect that Irwin made a much better attempt at argument than Rose did on that front.
Judge Dawson stole the trial from Schiff.
Bing
Praise be to the Lord.
We are all servants of the Lord.
God bless Author #2.
And may God bless http://www.famguardian.org, http://www.sedm.org, as well as all of the misinformed posters and IRS shills who post at http://www.quatloos.com.
Bing
You are welcome.
I understand, Author #2. You did the right thing by trying to reach out to Larken.
The whole thing is just very, very sad, and it is made even more so because had Larken not been so stubborn, all of his legal woes could have been avoided.
I was shocked and disappointed when Larken wrote Attorney General John Ashcroft the infamous “PLEASE PROSECUTE ME” letter. I thought the letter was disrespectful, strident, arrogant, and bordered on threatening. Yeah, the letter was very strongly written, but it was legally flawed and that undermined its authority and credibility. Plus, Larken gave his enemies at the IRS and DOJ ammunition. And that was a strategic blunder as well. As a strategist, Larken was a neophyte in training.
I told several people in the weeks after Larken publicly released the letter, that he would be attacked by the DOJ. And sure enough he was attacked.
Even though honest American Citizens are at war with the DOJ and the IRS over the unlawful enforcement of the IRC, I don't buy into the position that one must be disrespectful or uncivil to DOJ and IRS folks.
There is plenty of evidence we can use to make our legal arguments and accomplish our goals, so IMHO, writing, caustic, strident, threatening communications like Larken did, is wholly counter-productive and unprofessional.
One has to remember that the DOJ folks have egos and I feel Larken backed Ashcroft and the DOJ into a corner. And that was stupid and arrogant.
As a direct result of Larken throwing down the gauntlet so publicly, there likely were scores of attorneys inside the DOJ advocating that Larken and other Tax Honesty Movement leaders be attacked by the DOJ. And sure enough, they, the DOJ, have attacked enmasse, first raiding Larken's home at gun point to humiliate and embarrass Larken, and then concocting the bullshit false allegations about kiddie porn on Larken's home computer.
The kiddie porn scheme was most likely designed to undermine Larken's reputation, and even though the kiddie porn charges were withdrawn by the DOJ, it damaged Larken irreparably and many of the fence sitters in the Tax Honesty Movement fell back into the IRS' fold and no doubt became taxpayers again.
There is a correct way to fight and an incorrect way to fight.
Larken Rose has showed us all how not to fight. Thanks for the lesson, Larken.
Bing
Author #2, I took no joy or satisfaction in writing that post.
None.
I wish Larken was not in prison and I wish Tessa was not convicted.
But I spent about 2 hours recently, with a husband and wife, and they are “HUGE fans of Larken” (their exact words) and they still advocate 861 with tremendous zeal.
Author #2s, I tried and tried to walk them through the 861 traps and snares, the limited definition of the term “United States', and no matter what I said, they just could not be convinced of the errors in their thinking, their flawed logic, or be persuaded about the very limited application of the 861 Argument. It was sad, really. 🙁
They told me that they occassionally read this Forum, so, I wrote the post above, which, unfortunately, required me to tell the Truth about Larken and his 861 position, because I felt then, and still feel now, that the legions of Larken Rose followers, need to be educated before they too end up in prison or they go around spouting the same flawed ideas about the 861 thesis.
Our biggest enemy is IGNORANCE!!! And rest assured the IRS and the DOJ exploit this fact!!!
I don't doubt that Larken loves this country. However, since he was a leader in the Tax Honesty Movement, my position is that Larken owed it to his family, and to all of us on the front lines, to get his facts correct. Leaders have serious responsibilities to their legions of followers. I feel that had Larken not been so self-involved and self-absorbed, he would have realized this simple fact. And on this score, sadly, by any objective assessment, Larken failed miserably.
I can not say for certain, but I also feel that Larken is only partly to blame. By that I mean that if it is true that Larken had many friends, and here, I mean, genuine friends, people that Larken could have trusted, then, those friends had a responsibility, as Larken's friend, to set him straight and to point out to him, that there were serious shortcomings, legally speaking, with the 861 argument.
A genuine friend would have found a way to enlighten Larken, and show him that he was making certain mistakes. Or, at the very least, they would have given Larken their honest opinions and tried harder to get Larken to seek out the education that he so sorely needed. To not correct a mistake, is itself, a mistake. Thus, I conclude that at least some of Larken's so called friends, not his sycophants, but his genuine friends, failed Larken when he needed them the most. And that too is very sad. In a certain respect, Larken's friends betrayed Larken as well.
The worst part is not that Larken is in prison, but it is that upon his conviction, he abandoned the 861 position to save his own skin, in the hope of getting a reduced sentence, and he also missed an opportunity to admit publicly some the reasons why the 861 Arguement was subordinate to the jurisidictional thesis. Such a public admission by Larken would have done volumes to sway his fan club and to help set his adherents and sycophants straight, so that they stop advancing the same limited 861 position, and instead read and study material such as that found in the Hoax book.
Had Larken not been so stubborn, he would have had stuff on his website about the non-resident alien position, the trade or business scam, etc, and I never saw anything like that on his website and cann't recall him linking his website to places like famguardian.org, where one could have obtained reliable, and factually correct information. I never got one email from Larken telling people to read the Great IRS Hoax Book. Now that is bizzare and makes one wonder about Larken's true motives.
The Tax Honesty Movement has to go forward without Larken. And we will be just fine. We grow stronger and stronger every day, and this Forum is a key reason why. We have arguably some of the best minds in the Tax Honesty Movement, right here in this Forum.
I remain hopeful that readers of this Forum can learn from Larken's mistakes, identify his flawed legal position, and move forward.
So, it was in this spirit that I wrote the above post and I hope that all 861 adherents will keep an open mind about my posts in this thread, and that they will do the research and also educate themselves about the severe, limited applicability of the IRC to American Citizens who ARE NOT engaged in a “trade or business” and thus, do not have any “effectively connected income”.
Bing
